v3.1.2: Allow xml field/keyword in any schema as a MAY
#4613
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This allows implementations to support the `xml` Schema Object field / JSON Schema extension keyword in any Schema Object, with a recommendation that the behavior be forward-compatible with OAS 3.2.
handrews
added
xml
media and encoding
miqui
approved these changes
May 19, 2025
ralfhandl
approved these changes
May 19, 2025
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Suggested by @ralfhandl in #4576 (comment) on the grounds that some vendors already do this anyway.
This allows implementations to support the
xmlSchema Object field / JSON Schema extension keyword in any Schema Object, with a recommendation that the behavior be forward-compatible with OAS 3.2.This does not break 3.1 compatibility, but it is a bit unusual as a patch release change as it does allow for additional functionality, and unlike the additional MAY guidance on
$dynamicRefin 3.1.1, it is not just adding guidance to an area where we were silent.On the other hand, we can look at it as a "we're not adding a new feature, we're just telling you how you can be compatible with future changes" thing. idk how that fits with our compatibility story.
I'm fine with including this in 3.1.2, and I'm fine rejecting it and just letting people figure out that they can, of course, "backport" 3.2 functionality as "extensions". But I figured it was worth a quick write-up based on @ralfhandl 's comment.